4 ms·
For skyscrapers, what we've reached is the practical limit of interior space. You can't usefully add more floors because you consume that much space on the low
by vikingerik 5y ago
For skyscrapers, what we've reached is the practical limit of interior space. You can't usefully add more floors because you consume that much space on the lower floors for more elevator shafts, support columns, and other infrastructure. It becomes more economically practical to build that space into another building instead.
There's a reason that most Manhattan skyscrapers range around 30 to 50 floors. Anything over that is mostly a stunt for visibility and publicity, not economic practicality. The main thing you gain from being taller is a tourist observation deck, but there's only going to be demand for a few of those per city.
- paulpauper 5y agoexactly. the costs go up as floors increase.
- pradn 5y agoConstruction costs increase exponentially going into the sky and also into the ground. Costs can be recouped via condo/office sales/rents. The height/depth vs cost line has to intersect with the line of economic activity. That's why the most prosperous cities can command the highest towers. And that's why Midtown NY has most of the new tall buildings - that's where dynamism is, not Downtown, which is a little outpost of Midtown at this point. For example, the Bank of America HQ is in midtown, not on Wall Street, in downtown NYC.
- nightski 5y agoIt also has to do with the land itself. In our area we can't build tall buildings simply because it's all clay here. It's not very feasible.